Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment <br />Minutes of May 10, 1990 <br />Page 2 o f 4 <br />4) <br /> <br />e "T" portion of the alley. <br />Ordinance Section 6-500, <br />adjacent to a public right- <br />f ten (10) feet." An alley <br />which when at least twenty <br />(20) feet in width, may be used for vehicular service <br />access to the back 'or side of properties otherwise <br />abutting on a street or highway. Based on the <br />definition of an alley as a public way and the lack of <br />a ten (10) foot setback adjacent to the alley, the <br />permit was denied. There is a question regarding <br />Zoning Ordinance intent. This intent centers on the <br />present and intended use of the alley. The main reason <br />for requiring a ten (10) foot setback is to insure <br />adequate clearance between a building and vehicular <br />traffic lane. The Zoning Ordinance definition of an <br />alley states that an alley which is at least twenty <br />(20) feet in width may be used for vehicular traffic. <br />In the case of a twenty (20) foot alley, it is clear <br />that the ten (10) foot setback requirement would be <br />both applicable and reasonable. <br />immediately adjacent to th <br />Footnote #3 of the Zoning <br />Table B states: "All yards <br />of-way must be a minimum o <br />is defined as a public way <br />Dr. Bernay swore in Mr. Lindsey Pfeiffer. Mr. Pfeiffer <br />stated he wanted to be allowed to use the property up <br />to the property line. He told the Board this best <br />utilized the use of the property and the setback does <br />not help the City because additional footage in working <br />space in the alley is not available due to existing <br />fence and concrete slab. Also, any improvements on <br />property corner lot will completely be hidden by <br />building from the public view. <br />CALL FOR VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE ENFORCING <br />OFFICER'S DECISION #A90-002. <br />Charles Christensen made a <br />and the motion was seconded <br />was unanimously approved. <br />motion to grant the appeal <br />by Steve Hines. The appeal <br />5) CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE90-001. SPECIAL <br />EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED `PO THE 10 FOOT SETBACK <br />REQUIREMENTS AND 90~ MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS <br />OF ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 6-500, TABLE B. SPECIAL <br />EXCEPTION IS ALSO REQUESTED TO THE OFF STREET PARKING <br />.REQUIREMENTS OF ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 10-600. <br />EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED FOR LTS 27 & 2<g~OF BLK 39; TOWN <br />OF LA PORTE WHICH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 301 WES'P MAIN <br />STREET. <br />